ARMY BOARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS

RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS


	IN THE CASE OF:

	BOARD DATE:  15 July 2019

	DOCKET NUMBER:  AR20190002594


APPLICANT REQUESTS:  Correction of her records to show she was honorably 
discharged.

APPLICANT'S SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS CONSIDERED BY THE BOARD:  

*	DD Form 149 (Application for Correction of Military Record Under the Provisions 
of Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552), with self-authored statement dated 
12 February 2019

FACTS:

1.  The applicant did not file within the three year time frame provided in Title 10, U.S. 
Code (USC), Section 1552 (b); however, the Army Board for Correction of Military 
Records (ABCMR) conducted a substantive review of this case and determined it is in 
the interest of justice to excuse the applicant's failure to timely file. 

2.  The applicant states, in effect;

   a.	Her application should be considered, because there is no time limit on justice 
and no weight or baring on the fate of righting wrongs and acknowledging due process 
and impropriety.  Truth is timeless.  Justice has no expiration date and errors are for 
correcting.  She requests her discharge be upgraded because it has blocked her from 
obtaining opportunities, privileges, and benefits worked for and earned by her.  She 
completed seven years of honorable military service prior to the separation.  

   b.	She recognizes and has personally witnessed the reality of commands varying in 
their interpretation of the regulations.  In her observation, it has been true that if a 
member has committed a minor infraction, a series of minor infractions, or a pattern of 
misconduct, the commander is not necessarily obligated to initiate discharge.  
Furthermore, during her seven years of service, she personally bore witness to multiple 
enlisted Soldiers and Officers enjoying the undeniable privilege of a command that 
overlooked their subpar conduct and less than appropriate behavior.  In many cases, 
the behavior exhibited by the offenders would serve as a valid basis for discharge.  
However, somehow, a solution for the less than honorable behavior that involved the 
Soldier/Officer was retention by way of rehab, counseling, demotion, wage garnishment 
and/or many other means and ways.  Ultimately, however, retaining the Soldier as a 
member of the unit seemed to be done for the greatest good.

   c.	In her case, she was made a victim by an intolerant, and frankly jealous, female 
company commander who at the time chose to use her rank and power to destroy [the 
applicant’s] military career, as she [the applicant] was dating a man, unbeknownst to her 
that her company commander was involved with as well.  Her commander used her 
authority to rid herself of her competition, which was the applicant.  It is true, [the 
applicant] failed a drug test due to her incredibly infrequent recreational usage of 
marijuana at the time.  However, it is also true that she was a Soldier with seven years 
of good conduct and outstanding service behind her.

   d.	Additionally, up to that point, she personally witnessed upwards of dozens of 
both ranked Soldiers and Officers who were active substance abusers, domestic 
violence offenders, participants of infidelity, petty theft and the like, wield power and 
control over her, all the while being entangled and embroiled in their own debaucherous 
situations for which they were given leniency and second chances.

   e.	It is important to her to point out that the majority of the Soldiers and Officers 
were not struggling with their usage of the herb known as the marijuana plant.  The 
majority of these Soldiers and Officers were addicted to synthetic, man-made drugs, 
including but not limited to; heroin, crack, cocaine, and alcohol.

   f.	She wonders how is it then, that a Soldier such as herself with over seven years 
of honorable behavior and service, and no subsequent behavioral issues, was not given 
the respect, value, opportunity, care, concern, honor, discretion, and/or tolerance that 
was extended to so many others?  She deserves her benefits.  The United States 
military has received her time and she cannot get it back.

   g.	It is inadequate and unconscionable that the United States military has created 
and embraced a system that does not allow for pure equity and equality across all 
individuals, regardless of sex, skin color, rank and age.  It also adds insult to injury that 
currently in the United States of America, there are nine states plus the District of 
Columbia, her birthplace, where the sales of recreational marijuana is allowed.  There 
are another 21 states where some form of medical marijuana has been legalized, and 
another 16 states where usage of a lesser marijuana extracts has been made 
permissible.

   h.	Throughout all of the change that represents the story and usage of marijuana 
through the years, what is of particular significance and undeniable importance is that 
the lives and livelihood of Black people have been adversely and disproportionately 
affected and the same cannot be said of white people.  Black people have been made 
fodder, prison bait, and examples for America's slow progression towards the 
legalization of marijuana and acceptance by the nation.  Her case is just another 
example of the disproportionality that exists around this topic.

   i.	She has defended her intentions to have her discharge upgraded based on 
numerous insights to the gross inequity and inarguable wild disparate actions by which 
she was disenfranchised.  She is asking that the Board represent justice in her case by 
allowing for the full restoration of her rightfully earned benefits and by way of a 
discharge upgrade.

3.  The applicant enlisted in the U.S. Army Reserve (USAR) on 7 May 1993.  

4.  The applicant signed a DA Form 3286-67 (Statement of Understanding (Army 
Policy)), wherein she acknowledged the following in Section 2 (Alcohol and Drug 
Abuse):

I understand that the Army's policy on alcohol and drug abuse is that the Army must 
prevent alcohol and drug abuse in order to perform its mission to defend the United 
States, to ensure its combat readiness, and to protect the health and welfare of its 
Soldiers.  I understand that service in the United States Army places me in a position 
of special trust and responsibility.  Any drug abuse by Soldiers of the United States 
Army is against the law, violates Army standards of behavior and duty performance, 
and will not be tolerated.  Alcohol abuse involving criminal acts or conduct 
detrimental to the Army or good order and discipline will also not be tolerated.  The 
illegal use of narcotics, or prescription drugs, or any use of marijuana or other illegal 
substances by Soldiers can lead to criminal prosecution and/or discharge under 
other than honorable conditions.  If I am identified for either alcohol or drug abuse, 
including the use or possession of marijuana, appropriate disciplinary and/or 
administrative action may be taken against me.  This may include trial by court-
martial or administrative separation from the Army.

I understand that certain Military Occupational Specialties (MOS) in the Army cannot 
be performed by persons who have used marijuana or other drugs.  If it is 
established that I have used drugs or marijuana and that usage disqualifies me for 
the MOS for which I entered the Army or have been awarded, I may be reclassified 
into another MOS.

5.  The applicant entered active duty for training (ADT) on 13 July 1993, for the purpose 
of completing her initial entry training.  Her record indicates she completed her initial 
entry training on 16 December 1993.  

6.  The applicant was released from active duty (REFRAD) on 16 December 1993, 
under the provisions of Army Regulation 635-200 (Personnel Separations – Enlisted 
Personnel), Chapter 4.  The DD Form 214 (Certificate of Release or Discharge from 
Active Duty) she was issued shows she completed 5 months and 4 days of net active 
service; she was awarded MOS 92A (Automated Logistics Specialists); her service was 
uncharacterized; and the narrative reason for her separation was "Completion of 
Required of Active Service."  She was returned to the control of her USAR unit of 
assignment.

7.  The applicant’s record contains memoranda that document her unexcused absences 
from unit training assemblies on:

*	5 and 6 December 1998 (two unit training assemblies on 5 December and one 
unit training assembly on 6 December) (the certified letter indicates that unless 
the absences were excused, she would have accrued a total of three unexcused 
absences within a one year period commencing on the date of her first 
unexcused absence)
*	6 and 7 February 1999 (two unit training assemblies on each date) (the certified 
letter indicates that unless the absences were excused, she would have accrued 
a total of seven unexcused absences within a one year period)  

8.  The applicant's record does not contain Unexcused Absence memoranda that 
document whether or not she received a total of nine unexcused absences within the 
one year period commencing on 5 December 1998, the date of her first unexcused 
absence.  Additionally, her record is void of documentation concerning marijuana 
usage, as alluded to in her statement.

9.  The applicant's separation documents are not available for review.  However, Orders 
055-12L, issued by Headquarters, 81st Regional Support Command, Birmingham, AL 
on 24 February 2001, discharged her from the USAR effective 24 February 2001, under 
the provisions of Army Regulation 135-178 (Army National Guard and Army Reserve – 
Separation of Enlisted Personnel).  These orders show her service was characterized 
as under honorable conditions.

10.  AR 635-8, dated 10 February 2014, paragraph 5-1f states that a DD214 will be 
prepared for RC Solders awarded an MOS even if active duty is less than 90 days: "f. 
RC Soldiers completing active duty that results in the award of a military occupational 
specialty (MOS), even when the active duty period was less than 90 days (for example, 
completion of the advanced individual training component of ARNGUS Alternate 
Training Program or USAR Split Training Program).  And Paragraph 5-6x(1) states:  
"When a RC Soldier successfully completes initial active duty training the character of 
service is Honorable unless directed otherwise by the separation approval authority."

11.  The Board should consider the applicant's statement in accordance with the 
published equity, injustice, or clemency determination guidance.

BOARD DISCUSSION:

1.  The Board carefully considered the applicant’s request, supporting documents, 
evidence in the records and published DoD guidance for consideration of discharge 
upgrade requests.  The Board considered the applicant’s period of active duty and 
found that she completed training and was awarded a military occupational specialty. 
The Board determined that period of active duty should have been characterized as 
Honorable.  The Board considered the applicant’s period of USAR service, her 
statement, evidence in the records and the lack of a separation packet.  The Board 
determined that there was insufficient evidence and a lack of mitigating factors in the 
record, or provided by the applicant, to recommend a change to the Type of Discharge 
she received when separated from the USAR on 24 February 2001.

2.  After reviewing the application and all supporting documents, the Board determined 
that partial relief was warranted.  

BOARD VOTE:

Mbr 1	Mbr 2	Mbr 3

:	:	:	GRANT FULL RELIEF

:X	:X	:X	GRANT PARTIAL RELIEF

:	:	:	GRANT FORMAL HEARING

:	:	:	DENY APPLICATION























BOARD DETERMINATION/RECOMMENDATION:
1.  The Board determined the evidence presented is sufficient to warrant a 
recommendation for partial relief.  As a result, the Board recommends that all 
Department of the Army records of the individual concerned be corrected by amending 
her DD Form 214, for the period of service ending 16 December 1993 to show in item 
24 (Character of Service) “Honorable”.

2.  The Board further determined the evidence presented is insufficient to warrant a 
portion of the requested relief.  As a result, the Board recommends denial of so much of 
the application that pertains to changing the Type of Service entry on her USAR 
discharge orders dated 24 February 2001.

 


	  
I certify that herein is recorded the true and complete record of the proceedings of the 
Army Board for Correction of Military Records in this case.

ADMINISTRATIVE NOTE(S):

Not Applicable



REFERENCES:

1.  Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 1552(b), provides that applications for correction of 
military records must be filed within 3 years after discovery of the alleged error or 
injustice.  This provision of law also allows the ABCMR to excuse an applicant's failure 
to timely file within the 3-year statute of limitations if the ABCMR determines it would be 
in the interest of justice to do so.

2.   Army Regulation 135-178 sets forth the basic authority for the separation of enlisted 
personnel from the USAR and the criteria for characterizing or describing military 
service as being honorable, general (under honorable conditions), or under other than 
honorable conditions, and when the service is not characterized. 

3.  Army Regulation 635-5 (Separation Documents), in effect at the time, established 
the standardized policy for preparing and distributing the DD Form 214.  It provided that 
the DD Form 214 was a summary of a Soldier's most recent period of continuous active 
duty, to include attendance at basic and advanced training, and was prepared for all 
personnel at the time of their retirement, discharge, or release from active duty.

4.  AR 635-8, dated 10 February 2014, paragraph 5-1f states that a DD214 will be 
prepared for RC Solders awarded an MOS even if active duty is less than 90 days: "f. 
RC Soldiers completing active duty that results in the award of a military occupational 
specialty (MOS), even when the active duty period was less than 90 days (for example, 
completion of the advanced individual training component of ARNGUS Alternate 
Training Program or USAR Split Training Program).

And Paragraph 5-6x(1) states:  "When a RC Soldier successfully completes initial active 
duty training the character of service is Honorable unless directed otherwise by the 
separation approval authority."

5.  Army Regulation 635-200, in effect at the time, set forth the basic authority for the 
separation of enlisted personnel.  This regulation provides that:

	a.  An uncharacterized separation is an entry-level separation.  A separation will be 
described as an entry-level separation if processing is initiated while a member is in an 
entry-level status (except when the characterization of under other than honorable 
condition is authorized), or when the Secretary of the Army, on a case-by-case basis, 
determines that a honorable discharge is clearly warranted by the presence of unusual 
circumstances involving personal conduct and performance of duty.  	

	b.  Separating USAR Soldiers who successfully complete a period of Initial Active 
Duty Training to which ordered, will be considered in an entry level status and their 
service will be characterized as "uncharacterized," despite having successfully 
completed their IADT period. 

6.  The Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness issued guidance to 
Military Discharge Review Boards and Boards for Correction of Military/Naval Records, 
on 25 July 2018, regarding equity, injustice, or clemency determinations.

	a.  Clemency generally refers to relief specifically granted from a criminal sentence.  
BCM/NRs may grant clemency regardless of the court-martial forum.  However, the 
guidance applies to more than clemency from a sentencing in a court-martial; it also 
applies to any other corrections, including changes in a discharge, which may be 
warranted on equity or relief from injustice grounds.  

	b.  This guidance does not mandate relief, but rather provides standards and 
principles to guide Boards in application of their equitable relief authority.  In 
determining whether to grant relief on the basis of equity, injustice, or clemency 
grounds, Boards shall consider the prospect for rehabilitation, external evidence, sworn 
testimony, policy changes, relative severity of misconduct, mental and behavioral health 
conditions, official governmental acknowledgement that a relevant error or injustice was 
committed, and uniformity of punishment.  

	c.  Changes to the narrative reason for discharge and/or an upgraded character of 
service granted solely on equity, injustice, or clemency grounds normally should not 
result in separation pay, retroactive promotions, and payment of past medical expenses 
or similar benefits that might have been received if the original discharge had been for 
the revised reason or had the upgraded service characterization.


ABCMR Record of Proceedings (cont)	AR20190002594

7

1